Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Anchors Away: A New Approach for Estimating Ideal Points Comparable across Time and Chambers

  • Nicole Asmussen (a1) and Jinhee Jo (a2)
Abstract

Existing methods for estimating ideal points of legislators that are comparable across time and chambers make restrictive assumptions regarding how legislators' ideal points can move over time, either by fixing some legislators' ideal points or by constraining their movement over time. These assumptions are clearly contradictory to some theories of congressional responsiveness to election dynamics and changes in constituency. Instead of using legislators as anchors, our approach relies on matching roll calls in one chamber and session with roll calls or cosponsorship decisions on identical bills introduced in a different chamber or session. By using these “bridge decisions” to achieve comparability, we can remove any assumptions about the movement of legislators' ideal points. We produce these estimates for both chambers from the 102nd (1991–92) to 111th (2009–11) Congresses, and we show that our estimates provide interesting insights into the nature of legislative behavior change.

Copyright
Corresponding author
e-mail: jinheejo@khu.ac.kr
Footnotes
Hide All

Authors' note: We thank Josh Clinton, Christian Grose, Alexander Hirsch, Michael Peress, Adam Ramey, Steve Rogers, Larry Rothenberg, Jungkun Seo, and the coeditor and the three anonymous reviewers for insightful suggestions. Replication data are available on the Political Analysis Dataverse at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/4IOIWV.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Adler, E. Scott, and Wilkerson, John. 2001–2004. Congressional bills project. NSF 00880066 and 00880061.
Aleman, Eduardo, Calvo, Ernesto, Jones, Mark P., and Kaplan, Noah. 2009. Comparing cosponsorship and roll-call ideal points. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(1): 87116.
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 136–59.
Asmussen, Nicole, and Jo, Jinhee. 2015. Replication data for: Anchors away: A new approach for estimating ideal points comparable across time and chambers. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/4IOIWV Harvard Dataverse.
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, Congress and presidency. American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 433–48.
Bailey, Michael A 2013. Is today's court the most conservative in sixty years? Challenges and opportunities in measuring judicial preferences. Journal of Politics 75(3): 821–34.
Balz, Dan, and VandeHei, Jim. 2004. McCain's resistance doesn't stop talk of Kerry dream ticket. Washington Post (June 12):A01.
Battista, James Coleman, Peress, Michael, and Richman, Jesse. 2013. Common-space ideal points, committee assignments, and financial interests in the state legislatures. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13(1): 7087.
Bernhard, William, and Sulkin, Tracy. 2013. Commitment and consequences: Reneging on cosponsorship pledges in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 38(4): 461–87.
Bonica, Adam. 2014. Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 367–86.
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004a. “The most liberal senator”? Analyzing and interpreting congressional roll calls. Political Science and Politics 37(4): 805–11.
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004b. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–70.
Desposato, Scott W., Kearney, Matthew C., and Crisp, Brian F. 2011. Using cosponsorship to estimate ideal points. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(4): 531–65.
Ensley, Michael J., Tofias, Michael W., and de Marchi, Scott. 2014. Are these boots made for walking? Polarization and ideological change among U.S. House members. In The state of the parties, 7th ed., eds. Coffey, Daniel J., Cohen, David B., and Green, John C. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield: 107120.
Fowler, James. 2006. Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks. Political Analysis 14:456–87.
Gelman, Andrew, and Rubin, Donald B. 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7(4): 457511.
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John B., Stern, Hal S., and Rubin, Donald B. 2004. Bayesian data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Grofman, Bernard, Griffin, Robert, and Berry, Gregory. 1995. House members who become senators: Learning from a “natural experiment” in representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(4): 513–29.
Groseclose, Tim, Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 1999. Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: Adjusted ADA scores for the U.S. courts. American Political Science Review 93(1): 3350.
Harward, Brian M., and Moffett, Kenneth W. 2010. The calculus of cosponsorship in the U.S. Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(1): 117–43.
Heckman, James J., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 1997. Linear probability models of the demand for attributes with an empirical application to estimating the preferences of legislators. Rand Journal of Economics 28:S14289.
Hibbing, John R. 1986. Ambition in the House: Behavioral consequences of higher office goals among U.S. representatives. American Journal of Political Science 30(3): 651–65.
Kessler, Daniel, and Krehbiel, Keith. 1996. Dynamics of cosponsorship. American Political Science Review 90(3): 555–66.
Krehbiel, Keith. 1995. Cosponsors and wafflers from A to Z. American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 906–23.
Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2010. John McCain is no longer a Maverick. Addendum to “unpredictable voters in ideal point estimation”. benjaminlauderdale.net/downloads/JohnMcCainAddendum.pdf.
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10(2): 134–53.
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. The hunt for party discipline in Congress. American Political Science Review 95(3): 672–87.
Nokken Timothy, P. 2000. Dynamics of congressional loyalty: Party defection and roll-call behavior, 1947–97. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(3): 417–44.
Peress, Michael. 2013. Estimating proposal and status quo locations using voting and cosponsorship data. Journal of Politics 75(3): 613–31.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review 105(3): 530–51.
Sides, John. 2010. Who are the real mavericks? The Monkey Cage (May 6). themonkeycage.org/2010/05/06/who_are_the_real_mavericks/.
Talbert, Jeffery C., and Potoski, Matthew. 2002. Setting the legislative agenda: The dimensional structure of bill cosponsoring and floor voting. Journal of Politics 64(3): 864–91.
Treier, Shawn. 2011. Comparing ideal points across institutions and time. American Politics Research 39(5): 804–31.
Treier, Shawn. 2010. Ideal point estimation using overlapping constraints in the Senate. Working Paper.
Wilson, Reid. 2011. McCain's shift makes him Senate's most conservative. National Journal (Feb. 24).
Woon, Jonathan. 2008. Bill sponsorship in Congress: The moderating effect of agenda positions on legislative proposals. Journal of Politics 70(1): 201–16.
Zwick, Jesse. 2009. What happened to John McCain? New Republic (Oct. 2).
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
MathJax

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed